15 November 2011 1:09 PM

Narcissus versus Lazarus 2012?

Newt Gingrich has now overtaken other Republican candidates in the race for the presidential nomination. According to PPP polling, in a startling come-back from the political dead Gingrich has now overtaken Herman Cain and Mitt Romney while the rest of the field have been reduced to also-rans. Republican voters in Iowa, which Gingrich has to win over in order to stay in the race, appear to be listening to him with interest.

This Lazarus-like resurrection surely illustrates the depths of the Republican problem. Gingrich was written off long ago because, in addition to a messy private life, his career imploded in even worse controversy. In 1997 as Speaker of the House of Representatives, he was reprimanded and fined for ethical wrongdoing after admitting failing to ensure that the financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

Yet despite all this Gingrich has now become the front-runner for the Republican nomination. The reason is pretty obvious. First, he has performed strongly in the TV debates between the contenders; and second, virtually every other breathlessly announced front-runner has promptly disintegrated under scrutiny, either through intellectual limitations, flip-floppery or allegations of sexual wrongdoing.

Herman Cain has now distinguished himself by scoring heavily in both the first and last categories, with lurid claims of sexual harassment now superseded by his excruciatingly embarrassing incoherence when asked on TV whether he supported the removal of Gaddafy from Libya. The only other one left standing seems to be Romney -- and his own ducking and diving on various issues hasn’t gone down too well either.

Well might heads be scratched over the Republicans’ calamitously weak store of presidential material. But the reason why they are fielding one crash-and-burn artist after another is surely that the Republican party has itself crashed and burned, in that it has lost its sense of purpose.

Ever since the defeat of Soviet communism, western conservatives have been in a state of woeful intellectual and moral confusion. What they failed to grasp was that while state communism was dying the threat to the west merely transferred itself to the cultural and social sphere through the twin attacks by secularism and left-wing ideology.

The west is now suffering from the baleful legacy of the ‘Boomer generation’, those born after World War Two and who turned with such nihilistic glee on the consumerist society that had nurtured them. As this article by Walter Russell Mead suggests, the Boomers created a culture of narcissism that has expressed itself on both left and right through failed or destructive economic and social policies. The resulting self-centred and debauched culture has created a vacuum into which the enemies of civilisation are steadily marching.

Like their Conservative party cousins in the UK, US Republicans have failed to grasp that the task for conservatives today is as stark and as urgent as it has been ever since Edmund Burke articulated it in the face of the French revolutionary terror: to defend life and liberty in the free world against its enemies both within and without.

Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.

The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he does realise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator. He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle -- beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure.

There is still much to play for and maybe Gingrich will fall by the wayside yet again. Without doubt, he has his flaws. He is a loose cannon, a polariser rather than a healer and with a dubious ethical record. But in a poor field it is possible that Gingrich’s strengths will bring him out on top. For these are desperate times. If Obama wins a second term, not just America but the free world will be in an even more desperately dangerous plight from an American President who is effectively aiding the enemies of civilisation (read Barry Rubin to see how the First Narcissist is busily empowering Islamists everywhere). Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.

So far, the Democrats have been able to sit back and watch the entertaining spectacle of the Republican multiple pile-up. However, if Iowa comes out for Gingrich expect to see great volleys of poison-tipped knives flying his way.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard,
I agree that Melanie Phillips has stated her case openly. I am aware that she has written at length. What she has not done is provide a reasoned case supported by sufficient evidence, which was my point. I invite you to give her recent book a close reading. As a reasoned statement of her case it is woefully lacking. The same criticism applies to her other writings. It is possible that her case can be given more cogent advocacy. I have seen no evidence that Melanie Phillips is able to give it. What we have instead is unreasoning sloganising and cherry-picking of quotes and evidence.

Alison
"What they failed to grasp was that while state communism was dying the threat to the west merely transferred itself to the cultural and social sphere through the twin attacks by secularism and left-wing ideology..."
Mealnie has wriiten hundreds of articles, four books and appeared on the radio or TV hundreds of times over the last twenty odd years where she has supplied a huge amount of evidence to support her views on the destructive effects secularlism and Left-Wing ideology.

I do not agree with a lot of what she says but you cannot say that she has not stated her case openly.

Good article but I wouldn't say this field is all around weak as the media has been trying to label it. Conservatives are trying to find the anti Romeny(rino). Bachmann or Santorum are great but are marginalized by the media. I'm supporting Bachmann but if she drops out I will support Gingrich for all the reasons you stated.

No, Eugene, contrary to the above statements concerning Sarah and Michelle, the American MSM only believes they've been instrumental in destroying them..they haven't, they've only made them stronger and more liked by the American public...and Newt shares this in common...he goes directly to the people...Newt is the smartest of any of the Republican candidates..and BTW, none of these Republicans are a 'calamitously weak store of presidential material' ..any one of them is smarter and more knowledgeable than Obama not to mention could beat him hands down, no matter what is said supplied by media sycophants...k

Melanie Phillips dedicates an entire article to the Republican Party presidential candidates, and mentions Ron Paul not once. They have their political differences, but merely to ignore him is pretty shameful. Dr Paul predicted 9/11 and the economic crisis, and is the only one offering real spending cuts (not just cuts in proposed increases). He is the only one willing to tackle the menace of fractional-reserve banking and fiat currency. Furthermore, he has won poll after poll: the Value Voters Summit, CPAC, the California GOP poll, the list goes on. His campaign fund-raising is enviable, especially from young people and war veterans.

As for Newt Gingrich, how can he be a flag-bearer for conservatism, when he has shown such an appalling lack of morality in his own life? ‘Serious thinker’? His only serious consideration is winning the presidency, and he will say any thing to do it. Notice how he is now talking about auditing the Federal Reserve, some thing that Dr Paul has been advocating for years.

As for ‘left-wing media’, America has Fox News, which, I am sure, even Melanie would agree, is a right-wing broadcaster. And, as for secularism, the US is a constitutionally secular republic, and thank 'God' for it.

"Well might heads be scratched over the Republicans’ calamitously weak store of presidential material" - Not quite true: some "titanium-spine" candidates like Bachmann and Palin have been destroyed by the media. It's the media that have the final say in our so-called democracies, be it USA or UK or France or Israel. And if occasionally clear-thinking, principled and patriotic people come atop, their victory is invariably marginal: had it not been for the media's 24/7 work to undo them, they would have triumphed in an overwhelming landslide.

"What they failed to grasp was that while state communism was dying the threat to the west merely transferred itself to the cultural and social sphere through the twin attacks by secularism and left-wing ideology..."

For anyone who doubts that Melanie Phillips is incapable of providing any argument or evidence sufficient to support such a generalisation, can I recommend her recent book "The World Turned Upside Down", where she proves incapable at much greater length.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.